IAM is a London-based company which is small potatoes compared to the Financial Times (also of London), so we suspect that EPO bought more than just EIA2016 coverage from the Financial Times. Just look at the new article above (screenshot).

Right now they try to make the UPC sound desirable and its potential avoidance like a loss to the UK. The summary says “British exit would delay the birth of a common system and cost UK hosting rights” and the opening paragraph is a long series of promotional lies (as if it was ghostwritten by the EPO’s PR people or PR agency): “A Brexit vote would seriously wound the new “unitary patent” and its associated “unified patent court” (UPC). Having played a big role in developing both institutions, Britain would have to withdraw from the UPC and forgo hosting a division of the court ruling on life sciences and pharmaceuticals disputes. Under current agreements, the unitary system can only come to life if ratified by a minimum of 13 nations including France, Germany and the UK, the EU’s three biggest patentors. “I don’t think Brexit would necessarily torpedo the whole thing,” says Rob Williams, co-head of intellectual property in the London office of Bird & Bird, the international law firm, “but it would certainly delay its introduction while new arrangements are made”.”

This is of course nonsense. Another way to put it is, Brexit would help crush an undesirable patent regime that helps large foreign corporations and patents trolls.

Paid-for ‘coverage’ from this EPO “media partner” can be found in many other places, e.g. [1, 2] (FT’s official account and “FT Reports”), so we suspect that Battistelli and his goons used this Lisbon stunt as an excuse for passing money to publishers, also for UPC promotion.

Watch one in the choir stating: “UPC needs ratified by 3 countries with most patents. If brexit Italy/NL ratifying would see UPC go ahead I think” (adding the #FTinvent hashtag and later excusing abusive litigation that UPC entails).

The latest UPC nonsense, which is of course being spread by those who stand to benefit from it, now says “LATEST ESTIMATE: UPC TO COMMENCE IN SECOND QUARTER OF 2017″ (each year they say “real soon now” or “the end of the year” or “later this year” and now it’s delayed again). We also saw that when it was labeled “community patent” or “EU patent”. It has gone on for nearly a decade and there was resistance/antagonism, resulting in rebranding (same modus operandi when attempting to pass controversial legislation).

Remember the real purpose of the event in Lisbon, where there’s talk about the notorious cooperation money. Smaller populations like Portugal or Bulgaria are being courted for purely political/strategic reasons and based on this short report [via Bastian Best], Bulgaria is the latest to give up and surrender to the UPC, perhaps having been brainwashed sufficiently by “media partners” like the Financial Times. “According to the website of the Council of the European Union,” says this post, linking to this agreement, “Bulgaria has now deposited its instrument of ratification (on 3 June 2016) to become the tenth country to complete its ratification formalities. Bulgaria joins Finland, Portugal, Luxembourg, Malta, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, France and Austria as one of the ten countries who have completed their ratification processes.”

How many more media organisations does the EPO need to buy in order to mislead the public, including many British businessmen who read the Financial Times? Are there no senses of ethics left at the EPO? And Battistelli dares justify his attacks on workers’ rights as being in the interest of eliminating conflicts of interest (while hiring his buddy’s wife to manage the staff [1, 2, 3, 4] and buying large media outlets)… █

Share this post:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

What Else is New

Torvalds and others who are middle-aged (or older) males are often torpedoed using weakly-backed allegations (or insinuations/innuendo) of sexism; that does not seem to matter and won't matter when they treat men the same (or worse)

Linus Torvalds was not fully canceled; nor was Richard Stallman, who's still heading the GNU Project (under conditions specified by those looking to oust him; people who code for Microsoft GitHub and many IBM employees)

General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Board of Red Hat, explains (keynote in 2011 Red Hat Summit/JBoss World) that he was introduced to the system as part of a military campaign; it basically helped war, not antiwar

Techrights examines Red Hat’s (IBM’s) hypocritical claims about the Free Software Foundation, founded by Richard Stallman back when IBM was the “big scary monopolist”; IBM employees were prominent among those pushing to oust Stallman from the GNU Project, which he founded, as well

The (in)famous letter against Richard Stallman (RMS), which was signed by many Red Hat employees with Microsoft (GitHub) accounts, doesn’t look particularly good in light of recent revelations/findings; it increasingly looks like IBM simply wants Microsoft-hosted and “permissively” licensed stuff, just like another project it announced yesterday and another that it promoted yesterday

One might not expect this from a so-called 'charity'; the Gates Foundation's critics are often met with unprecedented aggression, threats and retribution, which make one wonder if it's really a charity or a greedy cult of personalities (Bill and Melinda)

The assault on the media by Bill Gates is a subject not often explored by the media (maybe because a lot of it is already bribed by him); but we're beginning to gather new and important evidence that explains how critics are muzzled (even fired) and critical pieces spiked, never to see the light of day anywhere

Microsoft buying GitHub does not demonstrate that Microsoft loves Open Source (GitHub is not Open Source and may never be) but that it loves monopoly and coercion (what GitHub is all about and why it must be rejected)

The European Patent Office (EPO) keeps granting fake patents that cause a lot of real harm (examiners are pressured to play along and participate in this unlawful agenda); nobody is happy except those who profit from needless, frivolous lawsuits

After contributing to the cancellation of Richard Stallman (RMS) based on some falsehoods perpetuated in the media we're seeing the sort of thing one might expect from IBM (more so now that it totally controls Fedora and RHEL)

The coup to remove (or remove power from) Stallman and Torvalds, the GNU and Linux founders respectively, is followed by outsourcing of their work to Microsoft’s newly-acquired monopoly (GitHub) and appointment of Microsoft workers or Microsoft-friendly people, shoehorning them into top roles under the disingenuous guise of "professionalism"